I absolutely love this idea...Urban farming is a great way for inner city residents to take an active role in the growing and harvesting of food to help with the war on hunger. Detroit is in need of radical changes and this would be a great start...

Forcing people out of their homes is a 3rd rail. Almost everybody wants this, they just don't want to paint themselves into a political corner by admitting it. I'm sure they are greasing some wheels behing the scenes, however.

I know that Flint was considering something along these lines a few years ago, but I have no idea how it progressed. I do remember that there was alot of controversy because part of the goal was to exercise eminent domain to remove/move people who were highly isolated in decaying neighborhoods. While the city was going to save on services (police, fire, water, utilities) by handling a smaller area, many longtime residents didn't want to move from their traditional homes.

That is the only real hangup but sometimes we as a society must move forward (not trying to be harsh here) even if a few people may end up in a worse position.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

can be a very difficult thing ( see Michigan Football last two years ).
While you may be correct that people will be better off in the long run, it's tough to give up what they've known, in exchange for the unknown. Remember, too, that for older people, the long run may never get here, they have to think short term.

1. Telling people to move out of their homes and move somewhere else, especially in Detroit (where Eminent Domain has had a pretty mixed/racist history), doesn't always go over well.

2. Urban farming seems like a great idea, but in many neighborhoods and newly-cleared areas, industrial contaminates in the soil make farming impossible. Detroit is an environmental wasteland in a lot of places.

It is true that Detroit is far larger geographically than its population would warrant, and it's been like that for decades (more single-family homes, less high-density multi-unit dwellings), and it seems like a great idea to consolidate, but for right now, it's an idea. And likely no more than that.

Doesn't matter if it's Dave Bing. Detroiters have long had an aversion to Eminent Domain, going back to efforts to move minorities using it in the 50's, its use to help clear out Paradise Valley and Black Bottom to build freeways, and the entire neighborhood of Poletown being bulldozed for a GM plant in 1981.

Detroit residents get understandably touchy when this kind of thing gets brought up because it's been so misused in such a selective way in the past.

I'm not arguing the history with you. I'm just saying that Dave Bing is the kind of person that can sell this and get it started. Besides, I'm pretty sure with HUD money and other fed gov programs they should be able to make it worth people's effort to move.

The city needs to look at selling off the large parcels of empty land to develops at $1. If successful in attracting new residential development, it would be a good long-term decision to build the city's tax base.

Young professionals in contrast with the baby boomers have been flocking to urban areas. D.C. is a great example. There's an over-capacity, but bringing young, well-educated professionals into the city may be a catalyst for bringing commercial opportunities into the city. You are entirely correct on there existing an over-capacity in the area, but if I were the city, I wouldn't care about cannibalizing the population of the suburbs.

The yuppie crowd already has a home in Royal Oak. You'd have to do a lot of convincing to get them to move to the D.

Right now, there's no way that you'd attract that sort of person to Detroit, even if you built it up. Look at the area downtown that's been built up nicely and heavily policed, its still pretty vacant.

Until Detroit reinvents itself as something other than the symbol of urban decay, you're not going to get many college grads with good professional jobs to live there.

Unfortunately, the way the surrounding cities are governed (particularly the zoning) it will do nothing to stop the endless urban sprawl. Successful cites usually have both geographic restrictions, as well as the political will to limit the amount of urban dilution (strict zoning regulations, incentives, mass transit investment); Metro detroit has a river to the south, but the will power of a heroin addict.

This is only a good thing. This would be one of the first legitimate efforts I can remember to reduce blight and urban sprawl.

First, condensing the populous saves big time on government spending. That means where people live, though a little more crowded, is a much nicer place. Improved education. Better roads. Better Police and Fire. Better EMS. Better Community.

Second, densified areas are more resistant to crime, vandalism, and homelessness, since it is easier to coordinate community watches, shelters, after school programs, etcetera. This means higher quality of life, a more productive economy (more JOBS!), and higher property values. People being moved from rotted out homes to nicely maintained, if smaller, apartments might find in a couple of years that their new homes are worth quite a bit.

I also ask this: If these areas are bulldozed and cleared of human habitation (well, in legal homes...), how does it automatically mean they will no longer need to use city services?

Seems to me that these areas would become easy squatting territories for the homeless (Detroit is a city with, according to some estimates, some 25,000 homeless people, probably more), and largely unsupervised tracts for crime and other nefarious activities.

Now, that's not to say that these things don't already exist in higher instances in remote/desolate areas of the city, but clearing them out with the intention of concentrating Police/Fire/etc. in more densely-habitated areas seems problematic at best. Not to mention the fact that bulk trash pickup (which we take for granted in many places) has been strongly curtailed in Detroit in recent years, so it's also a pretty safe bet that those areas will become de facto trash dumps.

All in all, this is not the cut-and-dry easy fix so many are making it out to be.

Now, that's not to say that these things don't already exist in higher instances in remote/desolate areas of the city, but clearing them out with the intention of concentrating Police/Fire/etc. in more densely-habitated areas seems problematic at best.

No. It's BETTER at WORST. And that's what matters. The bulldozed areas, while in transition, will clearly be no-fly zones for people. This will make patrolling easy, and anyone there at night is suspect. Plus, don't need fire coverage on empty dirt lots. Maybe a touch more police (which should be easier if they can consolidate the other areas police have to more actively patrol), but no other services really.

What Shock said. Urban blight enables crime because there are large tracts of buildings that are empty unsupervised and out of the public eye. The privacy and concealment generated by abandonment is what enables crime. Those advantages disappear when you raze a tract of land down to the dirt. Hiding drugs, guns and money is easy in a building. It's fairly obvious on a flat piece of land.

When I visited my sister in Athens, GA if was surprised to learn there is an area called "Bumtown" where homeless, derelicts, and drug addicts have setup a small tent city outside of town. It's warm there and apparently it's a phenomenon in warmer climates. I can't see this happening in places where it is subzero at times.

This is good as long as people leave willingly. I don't ever support forcing people out of there homes using emminent domain and think that Kelo v New London was despicable.

Invasive Asian Carp evolve into invasive Asian Ninja Robots? Hell, I thought the fact that New Detroit was a carbon copy of Houston in the 1980s was reason enough to avoid tearing down old Detroit. The traffic nightmares would be horrendous.

They did something like this in Indianapolis in the early 90's. I remember my first time in Indy driving in from the burbs and then there was this swath of vaccant land. Being a visitor, I asked and was startled to hear that they simply demolished it to start over.

There was a fascinating piece in the Guardian about urban farming in Detroit a couple of months ago. People were buying the lots for nothing, clearing the debris and setting up small gardens and Farmer's Markets.

Someone upstream mentioned pushing people out. How many of those folks actually own their own homes? I covered the aftermath of Hurricane Floyd back in 1999 and 2000. FEMA went in with the Hazard Mitigation Plan (they buy the land at the tax value and turn into greenspace to prevent future flooding) and a lot of folks were aghast. How dare they seize our land! Then someone reminded them that it wasn't THEIR land. They were renters and the property owners lived a long way away and had no interest in overseeing the restoration process. It had been their mother's house or something. Mom (or whoever) had died and they were renting it out basically until it rotted away and got condemned. They were more than happy to get tax-value levels for a house that didn't have flood insurance and was currently under water.

I would imagine that a lot of the initial targets in Detroit will be cases of absentee landlords and structures that wouldn't pass inspections.

About two years ago, I talked to an urban forester about what would be needed to reclaim developed land into a natural setting. She said the big problem was soil compaction. You'd need to till pretty deep and mix in quite a big of organic matter. Trees would be tough because of their roots, but there were plants that would help loosen up the soil and eventually give way to heartier plants.

This wasn't really a political talk. I just think that the city of Detroit needs to spend what money it does have more efficiently. If they spend some money to resettle some holdouts, or knock down old buildings, they will save on the services as mentioned. this is a long term "rebuilding" plan. You need some vision and will to make this happen. Detroit could do it and probably mostly with its own money or money from the state.
The key is to think longer term.

But if they're going to destroy 1/4 of the city, I think they should bomb* it, rather than use bulldozers. This has nothing to do with sense and a lot to do with the pure awesomeness of destroying things in spectacular fashion via explosions.

*To be clear, when I say bomb, I am referring to the use of all types of air strikes, regardless of the vehicle used. I also would be perfectly happy if they decided to use cruise missiles on abandoned portions of the city, because that would also be very cool.

Ok, if you like radical ideas on how to change Detroit, here are a couple I have heard from people close to me. These are not my ideas, just ones that I thought were interesting (don't shoot the messenger)

1. Establish and protect a large gay community. Gay communities bring a lot of people who are clean, educated and have lots of disposable income (no kids or families to support). What's more gay communities bring lots of cultural attractions, including cool restaurants and ecceltic shopping. And they are usually the safest part of the town (at least that is how it is in Chicago). This would further attract like minded (but not necessarily gay) people who value those sorts of things. The cascade effect would be great.

2. Elect a white mayor. This would never happen in Detroit's current state. Detroit needs to unwind itself as a "black only" city. Not saying a black Detroit mayor can't be more multi-cultural, but it seems that it is too ingrained in Detroit since Coleman Young. Not only that, it seems there is a large portion of the population who hate white people. In my opinion, I can't believe the leadership in Detroit gets away with such blatant racism. Maybe its the inherent racial double standard, maybe it isn't.

Certainly a lot of stereotypes in my post - remember, not my ideas. However, stereotypes are everywhere, and a lot actually have a high correlation of being true - there are many studies on it. And there is nothing wrong with stereotypes as long as you don't believe that people cannot break the stereotype.

First off, MGoAndy. Do you work for the Freep? Because, "Stereotypes have a lot of truth in them!" is not what I said, but you quote me as such.

Also, I am not saying Detroit should hire a white mayor, someone else did (and that person is actualy a professor at the University of Michigan, heavan forbid!) I was merely relay a radical idea. Not something I necessarily believe in, but I do believe that Detroit should unwind its "black only" mentality so people like yourself can run for mayor and actually have a chance. I must say, your skills in bending the context of my quote to suite your agenda would make you a perfect fit for Detroit mayor.

As for the idea of stereotypes. I don't have the article (on my home PC), but it basically says that certain cultural, genetic, and social factors contribute to the formation of a stereotype - the idea that many people of certain races or ethincities stick together and develop idiosyncratic and stereotypical behavior that is pass down to future generations. And this is not just a black thing (if that is what you were insinuating). The article talks of possible reasons of why:
- Italians like pasta
- Chinese are good at math (also part of a Outlier, by Malcolm Gladwell)
- White men (of western European descent) can't jump as high as most other races
- Even why African American's are more sensitive about race issues than other races
- etc etc

The article basically says that these are that there is a positive correlation between lots of stereotypes - and that for the most part is OK to analyze social trends and behaviors in this way. It becomes NOT OK when you believe that these stereotypes can't be broken or overcome simply because of your race. For instance, its OK to say that white men probably aren't good at jumping (after, there is a movie about it), but its NOT OK to say that white men can never jump higher than other races. Keep note, I did not write this stuff, just found it fresh and interesting.

Look. I understand that race is a taboo subject for most and that it can cause quite a stir. And I understand that many new radical ideas about race will not be well recieved. But please, don't act like a poor Freep columnist that can't quote someone correctly - I expect more out of Michigan fans

"Chinese are good at math (also part of a Outlier, by Malcolm Gladwell)"

Chinese people are also really good at speaking Chinese. You know why? Because they learn it. And they work at it. And they become very good at it.

The Chinese language being inherently good at teaching children math does not explain why 2nd and 3rd generation Chinese in America who never learned Mandarin still excel in math.

You know why Chinese have a very high academic achievement level in the US? Because there are 1 billion of them back in China. Those 1 billion were not good/smart/lucky enough to make it out of china in the 60's-80's through all the cultural purges and literally being sent out to the countryside to work for the government at age 12. The ones who made it into the US taught themselves calculus III through a book.

Then, you take that 0.001% of the smartest and most driven Chinese who made it to the US and let them have children. They make damn sure that their kids are the best academically. This leads to idiots believing that all Chinese people must be more intelligent than they are by some sort of magical event. "Chinese are good at math".

There are around 800 million dumb Chinese people still in China. Their IQ bell curve falls in the same range as the US IQ bell curve. If the Chinese people were somehow miraculously 30 IQ points smarter than the average American, they would have conquered the world 5 times over by now.

So yes, there is often a grain of truth in a stereotype. What's important is determining the root cause of a stereotype and not just going "lol Chinese are good at math, let's go to China and have them do all of our math." So before you go off believing anything that Malcolm Gladwell tells you, why don't you go ask your Chinese friend (I assume you have at least one from your days in school) why THEY think they're good at math.

So at the end of this, look at the root cause of the problem. Why does Detroit elect black mayors? Is it because the city is 90% black? Is it because (white) suburban leaders treat Detroit like shit? Or is it RACISM!!!

Did you really want me to go into detail about how I think you're an idiot for posting half baked semi-racist ideas on this board, then claiming that "The ideas were'nt mine, don't shoot the messenger."?
Clearly you thought they were valid enough to post here, but wanted to hide behind the fact that the "ideas belong to other people".

My post wasn't in response to the ideas presented, it was because you're a [REDACTED].

You give me the bulldozer, a food stipend, and a hotel to stay at after I pass out, I might just volunteer to bulldoze Detroit. Just the thought of free reign to destroy that much makes me feel all tingly inside.

Local governments have also thrown this around in cities like Cleveland. The emminent domain issue would really suck--I'd be furious if I was forced to move.

However, it only makes sense to try and minimize the cities footprint. If you can seal off water, electric, and sewer services to many areas, that would represent a long-term cost savings to a city that badly needs it. Also, getting rid of some of the worst slum areas should help with vagrancy and crime--to a point.

However, like many posters have stated, there are still no jobs in the city. There would be a brief boom as things were torn down and nicer buildings were put up, but that isn't sustainable growth. Eventually, the building slows considerably, and something needs to take its place--and that doesn't exist in Detroit right now.

Keep in mind this really isn't about jobs at this point, it is about making the city finacially viable to continue on. First need to keep the city on a balanced budget, something that it can maintain, then you can work on strategies for incouraging job growth.
This plan of action is all about stopping the bleeding of Detroit to death. Once the patient is not on the verge of immediate death, you can work on other areas of concern.

Not that I know anything about business, but I would imagine cheap open land, some denser and better cared for neighborhoods as population centers, viable mass transit (like the lightrail going in on Woodward) and maybe some more business friendly city initiatives (I don't know what tax incentives are like in the D - like I said, just speculating here) might lend itself to more businesses moving in. Nobody wants to move into a slum, but an open lot would probably be a different deal altogether.

I think this is a great idea, provided they can convince the more isolated citizens to move. It would provide Detroit with the ability to regrow, slowly reestablish services to newer areas as their tax income increases, and actually properly plan the city.

Agreed, but there still needs to be a follow up plan. You aren't going to demolish that much overnight. The demo/construction jobs will go to Detroiters, but as part of the plan, the city needs to properly zone and incentivize the return of business to the city that make the rebuilt/redone areas livable and provide the foundation for long-term prosperity. Otherwise, the money is going to be thrown away. Costs may decrease, but there still won't be enough revenue.

The city's resources are stretched to the breaking point. There are vast sections of the city (especially on the east side, but also southwest and elsewhere) where neighborhoods have just a handful of occupied homes. The city is obligated to provide policing, education, mail and snow removal to these isolated homes, and it's costing a fortune. And in the process, residents of better-maintained neighborhoods also suffer as the city's limited resources can't fully provide services to them, either. Detroit is unlikely to ever again exceed 1 million residents, let alone reach its 1950 figure (1.85 million). It's time to downsize. And if the city ever does start gaining population, it can be rebuilt more efficiently with higher-density residences.

As long as it's someone else's neighborhood, it's a good idea, eh boys?

I've been saying they should bulldoze Michigan from the thumb down--but of course, there goes lilly-white, gawd-fearin' Grand Crapids--and we can't do that to white folks!

Har Har. What a shit hole Detroit is. The problem is--it's the attitudes of the people. The auto industry has been on life support for 30 years and now, finally, when enough suburban fat-ass soccer moms now want to cram their cellulite-stuffed capri's into lillte, suffering (never stopping) Toyota or Honda hybrids instead of mini vans, Detroit can't handle it and is now "outdated"

So yeah, let's nuke it--and continue to pay farmers not to grow crops on about 75% of their land.

More to the point, GM is what gave Detroit money for so long. The public accepted the money without planning ahead and going ahead with public transport anyway. Same thing in Houston. While Big Oil still gives us some benefits, we've at least started on public transport anyway.

If the lack of public transit is what caused the urban sprawl, then whatever GM did happened way back in the 50s and earlier. So laying that blame would pretty much be nothing more than Detroit's usual MO: when in doubt, blame the past and throw rocks at the people that did a lot more good than bad.

You've linked to a Wikipedia article, which according to the banner at the top "appears to contradict itself" and "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Beyond all that, it refers to the alleged scandal as a "conspiracy theory."